Police admit that two defendants in the Tak Bai case have fled abroad since there were no arrest warrants yet. They confirmed that they are tracking them down at every stage and coordinating with all agencies. Witthaya criticized that asking questions like this would not give any information because the people who came to explain were subordinates of the defendants.
Reporters reported that the Committee on Law, Justice and Human Rights, chaired by Mr. Kamolsak Leewama, Narathiwat MP of the Prachachat Party, has an agenda to consider following up on the suspects in the Tak Bai case after the Narathiwat Provincial Court indicted and issued arrest warrants for 7 defendants, and the Attorney General disagreed with the investigator who ordered the indictment of 8 suspects, totaling 14 people, repeating the same as the original defendant.
In the meeting, representatives from the National Security, Border Affairs, National Strategy and National Reform Committee were invited to listen to the deliberations. In addi
tion, representatives from the plaintiff and the petitioner in the case were invited, namely Mrs. Pornpen Khongkhachonkiat, Director of the Foundation for Cultural Promotion, to be the plaintiff’s representative in the case. The Royal Thai Army, Director of Internal Security Operations Command Region 4 Forward Command, National Security Council, Provincial Police Region 9, and the Public Prosecutor Region 9 were invited. Each agency sent representatives to provide clarification.
Mr. Witthaya Kaewparadai, a member of the committee, asked whether the police had coordinated with the Immigration Police regarding the 14 defendants. Pol. Col. Rangsi Manjit, a representative from Provincial Police Region 9, reported that an arrest warrant had been sent to the Immigration Police to check whether the individuals in the arrest warrant had traveled abroad. If it was found, the Royal Thai Police would be notified to coordinate with Interpol.
Mr. Kamolsak asked further whether the Immigration Bureau had informed that th
e 14 defendants had not yet left the country, Pol. Col. Rangsi, since today’s meeting was not a secret meeting. Mr. Kamolsak still insisted on the original question, saying that it was information that could be disclosed, without going into details about when they had left and where they were going. He only wanted to know how many people there were, and it should not affect the case. Pol. Col. Rangsi therefore explained that there were only 2 people, but requested to keep the names of the individuals private.
Ms. Nittaya Meesri, MP of the Prachachon Party and a member of the committee, asked whether there was any coordination with the Immigration Bureau between September 12, when the court approved the arrest warrant, and September 20, regarding travel abroad. Pol. Col. Rangsi explained that as soon as he learned of the arrest warrant on September 12, he immediately contacted the Immigration Bureau. However, the Immigration Bureau informed him that two people had traveled abroad before the arrest warrant was
issued.
Inquiries were made about the process of checking the location of the phone signal and tracking people, in addition to searching houses according to the house registration. Pol. Col. Rangsi explained that we did not discriminate. He confirmed that we checked electronic devices, residences, or people close to us. We did not focus only on phones, but used electronic data tracking for everything. He believed that the perpetrators must have left traces, similar to the case of Paeng Na Nod, who left traces, so they were able to track them.
Mr. Ramadan Panjor, MP of the People’s Party, as a representative of the Security Committee, said that the explanation tried to say that they were performing their duties to avoid failing to perform their duties. But what society wants to know is where the 14 suspects are. From the information he knows, one of the people who fled the country is in London, England, and the other is in Tokyo, Japan, right? Has the police tried to follow up on communications to request th
eir release?
Pol. Col. Rangsi explained that at this time, he still did not know where the 14 suspects with arrest warrants were. As for the question of whether it was confirmed that some suspects had fled to London, England, and Tokyo, Japan, he considered it as providing clues. The Royal Thai Police had already sent the case to Interpol to request a red notice on October 7. He also explained the police officers’ procedures, saying that
after the Narathiwat Court issued an arrest warrant by court order on September 12, the investigators went to request an arrest warrant from the Pattani Court on September 20. On September 21, the arrest warrant was issued. It was expedited and followed up with a deadline of October 25, 2024, and the court warrant was entered into the police’s intelligence system.
While Mr. Kunakorn Manthirai, MP of the Prachachon Party as a committee member, said that many of the suspects were military and police officers, and there were 3 soldiers who had not yet retired. These people we
re accompanied by military officers. Was there a search of their homes or information on these people? Pol. Col. Rangsi confirmed that every step of the investigation, financial trails, and investigation and news tracking had been conducted.
Ms. Chonticha Jaengreaw, MP of the Prachachon Party and a member of the committee, asked whether the police had notified the suspects of the Watch List after the court accepted the case in order to track down the 14 suspects. Pol. Col. Rangsi explained that the police had notified the Immigration Bureau according to regulations, but we do not know whether the Immigration Bureau has taken action or not. However, there are regulations. If the officers make a mistake, it is the individual’s responsibility. Please understand this meaning.
Then, Ms. Pornpen, as the plaintiff’s representative, asked the prosecutor who was the lawyer for the 8th and 9th defendants. The prosecutor’s representative explained that in the case where officials accepted a government official who was
accused and sued by the people, the prosecutor had the right to enter and defend him without having to hire a lawyer, according to the Attorney General and Public Prosecutors Act, Section 14 (4). The reason for having a lawyer was because both defendants belonged to the Ministry of Interior and were administrative officials, but the prosecutor did not accept the other accused to defend them.
However, during one of the meetings, Mr. Wittaya said that after looking at the names, asking here won’t do anything because the people who have arrest warrants are the superiors of everyone here except the prosecutors who don’t have superiors. The rest are all former superiors. If this matter is to continue, ask the government. Asking here, there is no answer. Even if there is an answer, the answer will not be correct. Some of the people here are not yet civil servants because the lowest ranking suspect is the provincial governor. He is almost 80 years old and seriously ill.
After speaking, Mr. Witthaya immediately got
up and left the meeting room. During the meeting, the meeting room called for a vote, which was held from the meeting dormitory. However, MPs from the Prachachon Party and Mr. Kanwee Sipsang, MP of the Thammarat Party, said that the vote would take a long time, so they asked to continue the meeting. Meanwhile, MPs from other parties on the committee got up and left the meeting room to vote. In the meeting, only MPs from the Prachachon Party and the Thammarat Party continued the consideration.
The reporter reported that in the meeting, the relatives of the victims followed up via video conference, saying that they wanted the officers to quickly arrest all those who wanted them and wanted to see and wait for justice from the case. Meanwhile, the police also emphasized that they were expediting the arrests.
Source: Thai News Agency